Legal Research
Cases
Morgan v The Queen

Morgan v The Queen

Case [2014] NSWCCA 284 5 December 2014

Type to search within this case.

This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Morgan v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCCA 284

Hearing Date(s): 27/08/2014

Decision Date: 05 December 2014

Before: Leeming JA at [1]; Adams J at [2]; Fullerton J at [3]

Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - break, enter and steal - possess child abuse material - whether sentence is manifestly excessive

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 91H(2), 112(1)(a), 113, 308E Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 44, 53A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW)

Cases Cited: Barbaro v R; Zirilli v R [2014] HCA 2; 305 ALR 323 Danuca v R [2005] NSWCCA 45 Hernandez v R [2013] NSWCCA 51 Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Lewins v R [2007] NSWCCA 189 Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 R v Johnson [1999] NSWCCA 431 R v Lay [2006] NSWCCA 45 Watts v R [2007] NSWCCA 153

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Dane Ronald Morgan (Applicant) The Crown (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel: W Hunt (Applicant) S Dowling SC (Crown)

- Solicitors: Solicitors: Proctor & Associates (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2012/52557; 2012/58089

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal: District Court

- Before: Sides DCJ

- Date of Decision: 15 May 2013

- Court File Number(s): 2012/52557; 2012/58089

JUDGMENT

LEEMING JA: I agree with Fullerton J.
ADAMS J: I agree with Fullerton J.
FULLERTON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against an aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court in May 2013 pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW) after he adhered to pleas of guilty entered in the Local Court to nine counts of break, enter and steal laid contrary to s 112(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Each offence attracted a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.
In the appointment of the indicative sentence on the first count, sixteen further offences were taken into account on a Form 1. They included:
(a)thirteen further offences of break, enter and steal;
(b)one offence of break and enter with intent;
(c)one offence of possession of 0.44 grams of methylamphetamine; and
(d)one offence of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime.
The nine break, enter and steal offences on the indictment, and the thirteen further offences on the Form 1, were committed between December 2011 and February 2012 when the applicant broke into private homes across suburban Sydney and stole cash, jewellery, laptop computers, phones, cameras, Xboxes, and iPods. None of the offences was committed in company. Each involved preplanning to some degree.
The total value of the property stolen in respect of the nine counts on the indictment was estimated at $200,000. The value of the property the subject of the thirteen offences on the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Morgan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Morgan v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 284
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 284
Decision Date: 05 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Morgan, was convicted of break, enter and steal, and possession of child abuse material. He appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The key legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive, considering the totality of Morgan's offending and the relevant sentencing principles.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of Morgan's offending, his criminal history, and the need for the sentence to reflect community standards of justice. The court noted that while the crimes were serious, Morgan's offending did not warrant a sentence that was disproportionate to the gravity of the crimes. The court also considered the need for the sentence to have a general deterrent effect and to provide protection to the community. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The court held that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant sentencing principles and had not erred in imposing the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offending. The court also noted that the sentence had taken into account Morgan's background and circumstances, and had not imposed an excessive punishment.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the gravity of Morgan's offending. The court also noted that the sentence had achieved the objectives of general deterrence and protection of the community.

Orders